DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on December 16, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 27 and 29 have been amended, and claims 14-21 have been canceled.
Currently claims 1-13 and 22-29 are pending. Claims 1, 22 and 29 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to 1-13 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 27 and 29 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-13 and 22-29 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that each of the independent claims have been amended, and the claims as amended are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant fails to explain why the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. However, other than providing a general allegation that “the independent claims as amended are directed to patent eligible subject matter”, Applicant has not provide an adequate explanation as to why and how the claim limitations are directed to patent eligible, or which additional element or combination of elements in the claims are non-conventional and non-generic arrangement.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the Office Action failed to present even a prima facie case of ineligibility under Section 101 as required by the MPEP. In particular, the MPEP requires that the claims be considered both as a whole and that each elements of the claims be considered in the Section 101 eligibility analysis. However, multiple elements of the independent claims were not event considered in the Office Action’s Section 101 analysis.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Court has held that the USPTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). All that is required of the Office is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection, as well as any reference on which the rejection relies, in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of§ 132. Id. at 1363; see also Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("Section 132 is violated when the rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection."). As can be seen in the previous Office Action (pg. 7-11), the Examiner’s rejection under § 101 satisfies § 132 because it reflects the Alice analytical framework by identifying the abstract idea and finding the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, the Examiner identified the specific limitations that recited the identified abstract idea as required by the Revised Guidance. There is no requirement to recite limitations verbatim in their entirety. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that Applicant is unclear how assigning resources to stations is a fundamental economic practice of commercial interaction, and the Office Action provides no reasoning for how assigning resources to a set of stations is such an alleged abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is solely limited to assigning physical resources to a physical stations and does not provide any substantive arguments to support their position, or provide any analysis of the claimed concept. Here, for example, claim 1 recites a method for assigning a set of resources to a set of stations by receiving a resource constraint for the set of resources and a station constraint for the set of station, assigning a set of weights to the predetermined resource assignment, determining that the possible resource assignment satisfies the resource constraint, and determining a set of solution resource assignments as a set of the at least one set of possible resource assignments having a lowest total weight. The Specification describes that “The functional modules 132, 134, and136 of the resource assignment system 130 may also include a weight module 134 configured to determine one or more weights (e.g., cost) for assigning each resource 112 to each station 114 based on characteristics of the resources 112 and of the stations 112” (see ¶ 21); “Costs (weights) for each resource-station assignment may then be determined in accordance with these preferences (e.g., feedback data, rating)…the preference module 632 may assign lower costs (or weights) to assignments that more closely align with the received preferences. For example, an assignment that would have a flight with a certain operator grounded with other flights having that same operator may have a lower cost (or weight) than an assignment that would assign that flight to a gate in a different terminal or concourse. In another example, an assignment that would assign a foreign flight to an English-only gate may have a higher cost (or weight) than an assignment that would assign that same foreign flight to a gate with staff that speak the language of the foreign destination.” (see ¶ 44); and “the balance module 636 may determine various set of resource-station assignments that satisfy one or more constraints, and identify the set having the lowest cost (or weight).” (see ¶ 47). Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, claiming a method of resource assignment by determining the set of resource assignments having a lowest total weight (cost) is a concept of fundamental economic practice, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Revised Guidance, 84, Fed. Reg. at 52.
In the Remarks on pages 15-25, Applicant argues that the references cited in the Office Action, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest at least the emphasized limitations of “generating, by the processor, a set of resource assignment copies that are different from the set of pre-determined resource assignments; wherein:
each resource assignment copy of the set of resource assignment copies is associated with a pre-determined resource assignment,
each resource assignment copy comprises a copy occupancy time associated with the physical resource at the physical station, the copy occupancy time comprises the minimum occupancy time and an amount of buffer, and
each resource assignment copy comprises a virtual copy of the pre-determined resource assignment configured to simulate the pre-determined resource assignment and an associated copy occupancy time, wherein a simulated pre-determined resource assignment and a simulated copy occupancy time for each resource assignment copy is adjustable to test different possible occupancy times and resource assignments without disruption to the set of pre-determined resource assignments.” as recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive, therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-13 are directed to a method for assigning a set of resources to a set of stations, which falls in the statutory category of a process. Claims 22-28 are directed to a system comprising a memory and at least one processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 29 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites limitations of “retrieving a set of pre-determined resource assignments including occupancy time for a physical resource at a physical station, generating a set of resource assignment copies that are different from the set of pre-determined resource assignment, each resource assignment copy comprises a virtual copy of the pre-determined resource assignment configured to simulate the pre-determined resource assignment and an associated occupancy time, wherein a simulated pre-determined resource assignment and a simulated copy occupancy time for each resource assignment copy is adjustable to test different possible occupancy times and resource assignments without disruption to the set of pre-determined resource assignment, receiving a resource constraint for the set of resources and a station constraint for the set of station, assigning a set of first weights (e.g., cost) to the set of pre-determined resource assignments, determining at least one set of possible resource assignment that satisfies the resource constraint, determining a total weight for each set of the at least one set of possible resource assignments, determining a set of solution resource assignments as a set of the at least one set of possible resource assignments having a lowest total weight, and presenting the set of solution resource assignments on at least one display”; dependent claims 2-13 further narrowing the limitations include ”generating a set of second resource assignment copies, assigning a set of third weights to the set of second resource assignment copies, receiving one or more resource assignment preferences, defining a set of resource-station combinations by associating each of the set of solution resource assignment with each of the set of stations, assigning a set of fourth weights to each of the resource-station combination, determining a second set of solution resource assignments that satisfies the resource constraint and the station constraint and that minimizes a second total weight”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. With respect to generating a “virtual copy” of resource assignment, it refers to the concept of creating a duplicate of the resource assignment that exists only in a virtual or digital realm, not a tangible physical copy. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods that allow user to assign resources to stations at an airport based on a lowest total weight (e.g., cost), which are concepts of fundamental economic practice and commercial interactions that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “by a processor”, “at least one display”, and the term “autonomously” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, claim 1 recites limitations include “retrieving a set of resource assignments, receiving a resource constraint for the resources, determining at least one set of possible resource assignments that satisfies the resource constrain, determining a set of solution resource assignments having a lowest total weight, and presenting the set of solution resource assignments on at least one display”, which are similar to the concepts as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor of a computing device”, “at least one display” and the team “autonomously” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification discloses “The system 100 may include a database 110, an external assignment system 120, and a resource assignment system 130 that include one or more functional modules may be embodied in a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functionality of one or more of the functional modules and/or other functionality” (see ¶ 11); and “the external assignment system 120 may be any pre-existing computer-implemented (well known) and/or human-operated system for assignment resources to station. For example, the external assignment system 120 may be a computing system that receives various resources and various stations, and outputs a set of assignments that matches each resource with a station” (see ¶ 18). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor of a computing device”, “at least one display” and the team “autonomously” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification discloses “The system 100 may include a database 110, an external assignment system 120, and a resource assignment system 130 that include one or more functional modules may be embodied in a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functionality of one or more of the functional modules and/or other functionality” (see ¶ 11); and “the external assignment system 120 may be any pre-existing computer-implemented (well known) and/or human-operated system for assignment resources to station. For example, the external assignment system 120 may be a computing system that receives various resources and various stations, and outputs a set of assignments that matches each resource with a station” (see ¶ 18). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the processor, at best, may perform the steps including retrieving a set of pre-determined resource assignments [from a database], receiving a resource constraint for the set of resources and a station constraint for the set of station, and presenting (displaying) the set of solution resource assignments on at least one display. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Conventional computer components operating to collect, manipulate, and display data are well understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan. See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-13 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 22-29 parallel claims 1-13—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al., (KR 20140094271 A) discloses a method for managing airport resources based on a predicted number of passengers and the changes in the number of passengers visiting the airport according to time one the basis of the airport information.
Caseau et al., (WO 0125991 A1) discloses a method and system for assigning new tasks to a set of resources that have a first plurality of assignments by determining one or more displacement trees.
Tanakaet al., (US 5790862 A) a resource assigning apparatus for assigning resources which assigns the assignments in the intermediate program to the registers and memory using a graph coloring method by means of graph degeneration.
Xin et al., (CN 119005971 A) discloses a method for resource assignment processing comprising determining a target first virtual resource to be purchased and a second virtual resource to be sold, and determining if the purchasing and selling resources satisfying the requirement for the virtual resource transactions modes.
Petersen et al., (US 2015/0221225) discloses a method for managing aircraft ground operations includes receiving gate assignment scheduling, operational task schedule, and determining a first adjusted gate assignment schedule based on the gate assignment schedule and flight schedule.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624